Swerdlow, Anthony J.

Limited epidemiological evidence suggests that the etiology of hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer may differ by levels of histologic grade and proliferation. We pooled risk factor and pathology data on 5,905 HR+ breast cancer cases and 26,281 controls from 11 epidemiological studies. Proliferation was determined by centralized automated measures of KI67 in tissue microarrays. Odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p‐values for case–case and case–control comparisons for risk factors in relation to levels of grade and quartiles (Q1–Q4) of KI67 were estimated using polytomous logistic regression models. Case–case comparisons showed associations between nulliparity and high KI67 [OR (95% CI) for Q4 vs. Q1 = 1.54 (1.22, 1.95)]; obesity and high grade [grade 3 vs. 1 = 1.68 (1.31, 2.16)] and current use of combined hormone therapy (HT) and low grade [grade 3 vs. 1 = 0.27 (0.16, 0.44)] tumors. In case–control comparisons, nulliparity was associated with elevated risk of tumors with high but not low levels of proliferation [1.43 (1.14, 1.81) for KI67 Q4 vs. 0.83 (0.60, 1.14) for KI67 Q1]; obesity among women ≥50 years with high but not low grade tumors [1.55 (1.17, 2.06) for grade 3 vs. 0.88 (0.66, 1.16) for grade 1] and HT with low but not high grade tumors [3.07 (2.22, 4.23) for grade 1 vs. 0.85 (0.55, 1.30) for grade 3]. Menarcheal age and family history were similarly associated with HR+ tumors of different grade or KI67 levels. These findings provide insights into the etiologic heterogeneity of HR+ tumors.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Glioma accounts for ~27% of all primary brain tumors and is responsible for ~13,000 cancer-related deaths in the US each year. Glioma tumors can be broadly classified into glioblastoma (GBM) and lower-grade non-GBM. Typically gliomas have a poor prognosis irrespective of medical care, with the most common form, GBM, having a five-year survival rate of only 5%. While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have transformed our understanding of glioma susceptibility, individual studies have had limited power to identify risk loci. METHODS: We performed the largest glioma GWAS to date, comprising a meta-analysis of six existing GWAS (6,405 cases, 14,100 controls) as well as new GWAS from the Glioma International Case Control Consortium (GICC; 4,572 cases and 3,286 controls) and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)-Mayo (1,519 cases, 804 controls), totaling 12,496 cases (6,191 classified as GBM, 5,819 as non-GBM) and 18,190 controls. RESULTS: We identified five new risk loci for GBM at 1p31.3 (rs12752552; near JAK1, P=2.04×10-9, odds ratio (OR)=1.22), 11q14.1 (rs11233250; P=9.95×10-10, OR=1.24), 16p13.3 (rs2562152; near MPG, P=1.93x10-8, OR=1.21), 16q12.1 (rs10852606; HEATR3, P=1.29×10-11, OR=1.18), 22q13.1 (rs2235573; P=1.76×10-10, OR=1.15) and eight for non-GBM at 1q32.1 (rs4252707; MDM4, P=3.34×10-9, OR=1.19), 1q44 (rs12076373; AKT3, P=2.63×10-10, OR=1.23), 2q33.3 (rs7572263; near IDH1, P=2.18×10-10, OR=1.20), 3p14.1 (rs11706832; LRIG1, P=7.66×10-9, OR=1.15), 10q24.33 (rs11598018; OBFC1, P=3.39×10-8, OR=1.14), 11q21 (rs7107785; P=3.87×10-10, OR=1.16), 14q12 (rs10131032; P=5.07x10-11, OR=1.33) and 16p13.3 (rs3751667; P=2.61×10-9, OR=1.18). Case-only analyses confirmed the specificity of 11q14.1, 16p13.3 and 22q13.1 associations for GBM and 1q44, 2q33.3, 3p14.1, 11q21 and 14q12 for non-GBM tumors. In the combined meta-analysis, among previously published glioma risk SNPs, those for all glioma at 17p13.1 (TP53), GBM at 5p15.33 (TERT), 7p11.2 (EGFR), 9p21.3 (CDKN2B-AS1) and 20q13.33 (RTEL1) and for non-GBM at 8q24.21 (CCDC26), 11q23.2, 11q23.3 (PHLDB1) and 15q24.2 (ETFA) showed even greater evidence for association. SNPs at 10q25.2 and 12q12.1 for non-GBM tumors retained genome-wide significance (i.e. P<5.0x10-8). Associations at the previously reported loci for GBM at 3q26.2 (near TERC) and 12q23.33 (POLR3B) did not retain statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings substantiate genetic susceptibility to GBM and non-GBM glioma being highly distinct, consistent with their distinctive molecular profiles presumably resulting from different etiological pathways. Functional analyses should lead to further insights into the biological basis of the different glioma histologies. Such information can inform gene discovery initiatives and therefore have a measurable impact on the successful development of new therapeutic agents. Citation Format: Ben Kinnersley, Beatrice S. Melin, Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Margaret R. Wrensch, Christoffer Johansen, Dora Il’yasova, Quinn Ostrom, and members of GICC, Karim Labreche, Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, Paul A. Decker, Marianne Labussière, Ahmed Idbaih, Khe Hoang-Xuan, Anna-Luisa Di Stefano, Karima Mokhtari, Jean-Yves Delattre, Pilar Galan, Konstantinos Gousias, Johannes Schramm, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Sarah J. Fleming, Stefan Herms, Stefanie Heilmann, Marcus M. Nöthen, Heinz-Erich Wichmann, Stefan Schreiber, Anthony Swerdlow, Mark Lathrop, Matthias Simon, Marc Sanson, Preetha Rajaraman, Stephen Chanock, Martha Linet, Zhaoming Wang, Meredith Yeager, Rose K. Lai, Elizabeth B. Claus, Sara H. Olson, Robert B. Jenkins, Richard S. Houlston, Melissa L. Bondy. Genome-wide association study of glioma reveals specific differences in genetic susceptibility to glioblastoma and non-glioblastoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1302. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-1302

Investigating the most likely causal variants identified by fine‐mapping analyses may improve the power to detect gene–environment interactions. We assessed the interplay between 70 single nucleotide polymorphisms identified by genetic fine‐scale mapping of susceptibility loci and 11 epidemiological breast cancer risk factors in relation to breast cancer. Analyses were conducted on up to 58,573 subjects (26,968 cases and 31,605 controls) from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, in one of the largest studies of its kind. Analyses were carried out separately for estrogen receptor (ER) positive (ER+) and ER negative (ER–) disease. The Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) was computed to assess the noteworthiness of the results. Four potential gene–environment interactions were identified as noteworthy (BFDP < 0.80) when assuming a true prior interaction probability of 0.01. The strongest interaction result in relation to overall breast cancer risk was found between CFLAR‐rs7558475 and current smoking (ORint = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67–0.88, pint = 1.8 × 10−4). The interaction with the strongest statistical evidence was found between 5q14‐rs7707921 and alcohol consumption (ORint =1.36, 95% CI: 1.16–1.59, pint = 1.9 × 10−5) in relation to ER– disease risk. The remaining two gene–environment interactions were also identified in relation to ER– breast cancer risk and were found between 3p21‐rs6796502 and age at menarche (ORint = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12–1.43, pint =1.8 × 10−4) and between 8q23‐rs13267382 and age at first full‐term pregnancy (ORint = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83–0.95, pint = 5.2 × 10−4). While these results do not suggest any strong gene–environment interactions, our results may still be useful to inform experimental studies. These may in turn, shed light on the potential interactions observed.

Abstract Breast cancer risks conferred by many germline missense variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, often referred to as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), have not been established. In this study, associations between 19 BRCA1 and 33 BRCA2 missense substitution variants and breast cancer risk were investigated through a breast cancer case–control study using genotyping data from 38 studies of predominantly European ancestry (41,890 cases and 41,607 controls) and nine studies of Asian ancestry (6,269 cases and 6,624 controls). The BRCA2 c.9104A&gt;C, p.Tyr3035Ser (OR = 2.52; P = 0.04), and BRCA1 c.5096G&gt;A, p.Arg1699Gln (OR = 4.29; P = 0.009) variant were associated with moderately increased risks of breast cancer among Europeans, whereas BRCA2 c.7522G&gt;A, p.Gly2508Ser (OR = 2.68; P = 0.004), and c.8187G&gt;T, p.Lys2729Asn (OR = 1.4; P = 0.004) were associated with moderate and low risks of breast cancer among Asians. Functional characterization of the BRCA2 variants using four quantitative assays showed reduced BRCA2 activity for p.Tyr3035Ser compared with wild-type. Overall, our results show how BRCA2 missense variants that influence protein function can confer clinically relevant, moderately increased risks of breast cancer, with potential implications for risk management guidelines in women with these specific variants. Cancer Res; 77(11); 2789–99. ©2017 AACR.

Background The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. Methods We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. Results For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10−5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10−8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. Conclusions This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.

Abstract Background: The strongest known risk factor for endometrial cancer is obesity. To determine whether SNPs associated with increased body mass index (BMI) or waist–hip ratio (WHR) are associated with endometrial cancer risk, independent of measured BMI, we investigated relationships between 77 BMI and 47 WHR SNPs and endometrial cancer in 6,609 cases and 37,926 country-matched controls. Methods: Logistic regression analysis and fixed effects meta-analysis were used to test for associations between endometrial cancer risk and (i) individual BMI or WHR SNPs, (ii) a combined weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) for BMI or WHR. Causality of BMI for endometrial cancer was assessed using Mendelian randomization, with BMIwGRS as instrumental variable. Results: The BMIwGRS was significantly associated with endometrial cancer risk (P = 3.4 × 10−17). Scaling the effect of the BMIwGRS on endometrial cancer risk by its effect on BMI, the endometrial cancer OR per 5 kg/m2 of genetically predicted BMI was 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.89–2.21], larger than the observed effect of BMI on endometrial cancer risk (OR = 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44–1.68, per 5 kg/m2). The association attenuated but remained significant after adjusting for BMI (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10–1.39; P = 5.3 × 10−4). There was evidence of directional pleiotropy (P = 1.5 × 10−4). BMI SNP rs2075650 was associated with endometrial cancer at study-wide significance (P &lt; 4.0 × 10−4), independent of BMI. Endometrial cancer was not significantly associated with individual WHR SNPs or the WHRwGRS. Conclusions: BMI, but not WHR, is causally associated with endometrial cancer risk, with evidence that some BMI-associated SNPs alter endometrial cancer risk via mechanisms other than measurable BMI. Impact: The causal association between BMI SNPs and endometrial cancer has possible implications for endometrial cancer risk modeling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1503–10. ©2016 AACR.